coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant, Mr Tudor Vacarencu, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1945 and lives in the village of Sociteni.
5.  In the 1970s the applicant bought from the local authorities a house that had been confiscated by the Soviet authorities from a third person after the Second World War. In 1993 the former owner claimed the house back and in accordance with Law no. 1225-XII, the local council recognised his property right over the house. The applicant was evicted from the house.
6.  At the same time, the local council promised the applicant alternative accommodation, a promise which was not kept.
7.  In March 2000, the applicant brought civil proceedings against the local council demanding compensation instead of the promised house.
8.  On 14 November 2000, the Ialoveni District Court found in favour of the applicant and ordered the local council to pay him 52,797.00 Moldovan Lei (MDL) (approximately 5,000 euros (EUR)).
9.  The Local Council appeals were dismissed by a final judgment of the Court of Appeal of 5 June 2001.
10.  The applicant obtained an enforcement warrant which the bailiff failed to enforce.
11.  In May 2002, the judgment of 5 June 2001 was quashed following revision proceedings and the proceedings reopened. The reopened proceedings ended with a final judgment of 13 July 2004, by which the local council was obliged to provide the applicant with accommodation. That judgment has not been enforced to date.
12.  It appears from the documents submitted by the parties that the applicant has alternative accommodation in a neighbouring village, where he lives with his family.
4.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Passau, Germany.
5.  In 1990 the applicant brought an action for the invalidation of a will. A first-instance decision was adopted on 20 March 1995.
6.  Finding for the applicant, the Budapest Regional Court gave a second instance decision on 26 October 1995.
7.  In review proceedings, the Supreme Court amended the final decision on 23 January 1997.
8.  In 2001 the respondent requested the re-opening of the case.
9.  On 23 April 2002 the Budapest XX/XXI/XXIII District Court dismissed the request.
10.  On 7 March 2003 the Budapest Regional Court quashed this decision and ordered the District Court to resume its proceedings which, according to the information in the case file, have been pending ever since.
4.  The first applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Timişoara. The second applicant, the mother of the first applicant, was born in 1921 and died on 3 September 2004. In a letter of 4 June 2007 the first applicant, as the only successor of her mother, informed the Court that he wished to pursue the application.
5.  On 9 September 1991 the applicants lodged an action with the Timişoara Court of First Instance seeking rectification of the Land Registry and, accordingly, registration of their ownership right with regard to a plot of land. Of the twenty one hearings held between 2 October 1991 and 19 June 1997 five were adjourned at the applicants’ request, including between 11 February 1992 and 18 January 1993, between 2 March 1993 and 6 July 1994, and between 11 October 1994 and 27 February 1996, when the proceedings were stayed during criminal investigations against one of the defendants. On 19 June 1997 the Timişoara Court of First Instance dismissed the applicants’ action.
6.  On 28 April 1998 the Timiş Regional Court upheld the applicants’ appeal and quashed the judgment of the First Instance Court, sending the case back for retrial. The court considered that, as the land had been sold during the appeal proceedings, the new owner should be involved in the lawsuit. This ruling was upheld on 22 October 1998 by a final decision of the Timişoara Court of Appeal.
7.  After retrial, on 10 January 2000 the Timişoara Court of First Instance rejected the applicants’ action as groundless. On 19 July 2000 the Timiş Regional Court confirmed this decision.
8.  On 10 November 2000 the Timişoara Court of Appeal allowed the applicants’ appeal, quashed the two preceding judgments and referred the case back to the First Instance Court for a fresh examination, on the ground that the two courts had omitted to rule on two complaints and with regard to another defendant.
9.  On 21 December 2001 the Timişoara Court of First Instance re-examined the action and dismissed it. Of the eighteen hearings held between 12 December 2000 and 21 December 2001 one was adjourned at the applicants’ request.
10.  On 2 July 2002 the applicants’ appeal was upheld by the Timiş Regional Court, which ordered rectification of the Land Registry, declared null and void the subsequent sale contracts and ordered the administrative authorities to restitute the plot of land in kind.
11.  On 10 December 2002 the Timişoara Court of Appeal by a final decision allowed the opposing parties’ appeal and therefore annulled the judgment of 2 July 2002 considering, inter alia, that the courts cannot act as a substitute for the administrative authorities set up by the Real Property Act (Law no. 18/1991) to deal with claims for return of land.
4.  The applicant was born in 1917 and lives in the city of Odessa.
5.  In January 1998 the applicant and a Mr L. lodged a claim with the Zhovtnevy Court against a Mr G. in respect of a shed which he had built in their common yard.
6.  On 28 September 1998 the applicant extended the claim to include the Odessa City Council.
7.  On 2 November 1998 the Zhovtnevy Court joined the proceedings with a set of proceedings brought by Mr G. against the City Council.
8.  Between 24 December 1998 and 17 December 1999 five out of thirteen hearings were adjourned due to the authorities’ representatives’ failure to appear before the court, and five due to the absence of both the applicant’s advocate and the authorities’ representatives. The applicant’s representative Mrs S. was present at all hearings.
9.  On 30 December 1999 the Zhovtnevy Court allowed Mr G.’s claim and found against the applicant.
10.  On 15 February 2000 the Odessa Regional Court, following the applicant’s cassation appeal, quashed this decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. The hearings resumed on 5 October 2000.
11.  Between 5 October 2000 and 21 May 2002 seventeen out of thirty one hearings were adjourned due to the authorities’ representatives’ failure to appear before the court.
12.  On 27 May 2002 the Zhovtnevy Court again allowed Mr G.’s claim in part and found against the applicant.
13.  On 26 June 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal.
14.  On 26 November 2002 the hearings were resumed before the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal (hereinafter “the Court of Appeal”). Two out of three hearings were adjourned due to the authorities’ representatives’ failure to appear before the court.
15.  On 30 May 2003 the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 27 May 2002.
16.  On 17 June 2003 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal against the decision of 27 May 2002.
17.  On 29 August 2003 the applicant requested the first instance court not to send her cassation appeal to the Supreme Court as the case-file was not duly prepared. Her request was rejected, and various appeals against the rejection were rejected.
18.  On 22 February 2006 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s cassation appeal against the judgment of 27 May 2002, thereby terminating the proceedings. This decision was sent to the applicant on 26 April 2006.
19.  In November 2003 the applicant instituted administrative proceedings against the Public Prosecutor of Odessa seeking to find unlawful the refusal to lodge a protest against the decision of the Odessa City Council of 29 March 1994 on the use of the plot of land adjacent to her house.
20.  On 25 February 2005 the Prymorsky District Court of Odessa rejected the applicant’s complaint.
21.  On 31 May 2005 and 21 June 2006 the Court of Appeal and the Higher Administrative Court, respectively, upheld this decision.
5.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Chelyabinsk.
6.  On 13 May 2002 the Justice of the Peace of Court Circuit no. 2 of the Sovetskiy District of Chelyabinsk granted the applicant’s claim against the Chelyabinsk Tank Institute for compensation for the purchase of teaching aids. The applicant was awarded 9,600 Russian roubles (“RUB”). According to the Government, the Tank Institute is a State institution for higher education owned by the Ministry of Defence and funded from the federal budget.
7.  On 12 August 2002 the applicant submitted the writ of execution to the Tank Institute. By letter of 15 December 2002, the applicant was informed that the writ had not been received.
8.  The applicant brought a further claim against Tank Institute, seeking adjustment of the award for inflation and recovery of the interest for the period of non-enforcement.
9.  On 15 August 2003 the Justice of the Peace granted the claim and additionally awarded him RUR 8,350.22 in respect of the period from 13 August 2002 to 15 August 2003.
10.  On 3 November 2003 a court bailiff issued decision to discontinue enforcement proceedings because the Tank Institute had no assets from which recovery could be made.
6.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in the village of Chulman in the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic of the Russian Federation.
7.  The applicant brought an action against the Government, seeking to enforce State promissory notes for purchasing of a Russian-made car or to recover the monetary value thereof.
8.  On 15 November 2002 the Neryungri Town Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic found for the applicant and awarded her RUB 138,967 against the Treasury. On 20 January 2003 the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic (hereinafter the “Supreme Court”) upheld the judgment on appeal.
9.  On 26 February 2003 the applicant submitted a writ of execution to the Government of the Russian Federation. On 4 March 2003 the writ was forwarded to the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation.
10.  According to the Government, in October 2003 the Supreme Court stayed proceedings on all claims concerning State promissory notes until such time as the Constitutional Court had decided on the reference for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Presidium of the Supreme Court. The reference concerned compatibility of the law governing redemption of State promissory notes with the Russian Constitution.
11.  On 21 December 2004 the Ministry of Finance asked the court for an extension of the time-limit for filing an application for supervisory review of the judgment in the applicant’s favour.
12.  On 28 March 2005 a judge of the Neryungri Town Court granted the Ministry’s request, finding as follows:
 “Pursuant to Article 376 of the Code of Civil Procedure, final court judgments may be appealed against before the supervisory-review instance within one year after they became final. In the present case ... this procedural time-limit expired on 20 January 2004. However, as the court has established, on 23 October 2003 the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic did indeed suspend proceedings on the claims lodged by owners of State promissory notes for purchasing of cars against the Government of Russian Federation (the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation) in connection with the reference for a preliminary ruling..., which fact is confirmed by the Supreme Court’s letter of 5 November 2003.
Having regard to the above, pursuant to Article 112 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a court may only extend a time-limit if the party can show valid reasons for having missed it. The court finds that the above reasons exposed by the [Ministry of Finance] were valid.”
13.  On 7 July 2005 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic, by way of supervisory-review proceedings, quashed the judgment of 15 November 2002, as upheld on 20 January 2003, and dismissed the applicant’s claims. According to the applicant, she was not informed of the hearing. The Government produced a copy of summons addressed to several persons, including the applicant. In quashing the judgment, the Presidium noted that the lower courts had not taken into account certain provisions relating to reimbursement of State promissory notes and thereby committed a breach of substantive law.
5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Vizinga in the Komi Republic.
6.  From 14 June 2001 to 31 July 2003 the applicant was employed in the military commander’s office in the Chechen Republic. On the commander’s orders, he took part in counter-terrorist operations. For his participation he was paid an additional compensation of 55,807.70 Russian roubles (RUB) for a period of eighty-five days.
7.  The applicant applied to a court, claiming that the additional compensation should be paid for the entire duration of his employment in the military commander’s office. He submitted original employment contracts and orders signed by the military commander.
8.  The military commander’s office did not send a representative to take part in the proceedings and asked the court to hear the case in his absence.
9.  On 25 August 2003 the Military Court of the Rostov-on-Don Garrison accepted the applicant’s claim and awarded him RUB 444,965.37 against the military commander of the Chechen Republic.
10.  No appeal having been lodged against the judgment, it became enforceable ten days later.
11.  On 6 September 2003 the applicant obtained a writ of execution and submitted it to the Ministry of Finance.
12.  On 23 August 2005 a representative of the military commander’s office asked the Military Court of the Rostov-on-Don Garrison to quash the judgment of 25 August 2003 on account of newly discovered circumstances. He claimed that it had been founded on “unreliable evidence” (недостоверные доказательства).
13.  By decision of 20 October 2005, a judge of the Military Court of the Rostov-on-Don Garrison set aside the judgment of 25 August 2003 on account of newly discovered circumstances. The parties did not make available a copy of that decision to the Court. According to the applicant, it did not specify why the evidence in the original judgment was considered “unreliable”. The Government indicated that it was unreliable because “the applicant’s calculations of the indebtedness [had] had no legal effect”.
14.  In the re-opened proceedings the applicant’s claims were rejected in full. Copies of these judgments were not made available to the Court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Izmir.
5.  The applicant was the representative of the Izmir branch of a political journal, namely the “Bread and Justice” magazine.
6.  On 29 April 2003 the police conducted a search in the journal’s office, and found certain books and magazines which they suspected to be illegal. These publications were confiscated.
7.  On an unspecified date, the applicant was summoned to the police station to give a statement concerning the ongoing investigation. She was accompanied by her lawyer during her interrogation.
8.  On 19 June 2003 the Izmir public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Izmir Magistrates’ Court. He accused the applicant of “failure to obey the order of an official authority”, under Article 526 § 1 of the Criminal Code, on the ground that some of the materials gathered from her office had been previously declared illegal by a decision of the Istanbul State Security Court. The indictment was not served on the applicant.
9.  On 14 July 2003 the Izmir Magistrates’ Court, without holding a hearing, issued a penal decree and found the applicant guilty as charged. It sentenced her to three months’ imprisonment. The court then commuted the applicant’s sentence to a fine of 606,874,000 Turkish liras[1]. In doing so, the court relied on the “simplified procedure” stipulated in Article 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for relatively minor offences.
10.  On 15 October 2003 the applicant challenged this decision before the Izmir Criminal Court. In her petition, the applicant complained that her defence rights had been breached as she was never heard by the domestic court. It was also noted in the petition that, when the applicant was summoned to the police station to give a statement, she had been accompanied by her lawyer during the interrogation.
11.  On 17 October 2003 the Criminal Court dismissed the objection without holding a hearing. The applicant was notified of this final decision on 27 October 2003.
5.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Jesenice.
6.  On 20 August 1994 the applicant’s mother, A.K., died.
7.  On 7 October 1994 the Jesenice Local Court (Okrajno sodišče na Jesenicah) received the coroner’s certificate (smrtovnica).
8.  On 22 March 1995 the applicant was given notice of the court’s intention to hold a hearing in the inheritance proceedings and received an invitation to attend it.
9.  The court held hearings on 5 April and 25 October 1995.
10.  Meanwhile, on 5 July 1995, the applicant lodged written submissions.
11.  On 16 June 1997 the court issued an interim decision concerning the inheritance of A.K.’s               ownership certificate (lastninski certifikat).
12.  On 27 June and 5 September 2000 hearings were held. They were adjourned so as to allow the heirs to reach an agreement in respect of the inheritance. The subsequent negotiations were apparently unsuccessful.
13.  On 8 November 2000 the applicant lodged written submissions.
14.  At the hearing held on 14 November 2000 the court decided to stay the proceedings and instructed the parties to institute separate contentious proceedings with a view to determining the extent of A.K.’s estate which was disputed by the heirs.
15.  On 5 February 2001 one of the heirs lodged a civil claim with the Kranj District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Kranju) in accordance with the Jesenice Local Court’s instructions (paragraph 14 above). On 27 October 2003 the civil proceedings ended with an agreement between the heirs and the inheritance proceedings subsequently continued.
16.  In the meantime, on 19 December 2000 the Jesenice Local Court rejected the applicant’s request for interim measures. In addition, on 15 March 2001 the Jesenice Administrative Unit (Upravna enota Jesenice) issued a decision indicating that the farmland which was part of A.K.’s estate was not under the special protection which would prevent its division. The Jesenice Local Court received that decision on 18 May 2001.
17.  On 28 November 2003 the Jesenice Local Court issued a decree of distribution (sklep o dedovanju) dividing the remainder of A.K.’s estate (see paragraph 11 above) between her four daughters. The decree was served on the applicant on an unspecified date in December 2003.
6.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Poznań.
7.  On 17 June 1999 the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded the applicant in custody for three months on three counts of armed robbery. It considered that that measure was indispensable in order to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, having regard to the serious nature of the offences in question and the likelihood of a custodial sentence.
8.  The first hearing took place on 28 December 2001. Since that date almost 180 hearings have been scheduled and nearly 400 witnesses heard. Many hearings have been adjourned.
9.  On 21 September 2005 the court decided that, because of the lengthy illness of a judge rapporteur, a new bench should be appointed. This meant that the proceedings had to be restarted.
10.  On 24 November 2005 the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) severed the bill of indictment and ordered that cases against fifteen other co‑accused be tried in separate proceedings.
11.  The proceedings are still pending.
12.  On 30 January 2006 the applicant lodged a complaint about the undue length of the criminal proceedings under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”) and requested just satisfaction of PLN 10,000.
13.  On 23 March 2006 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed his complaint on the ground that since the date of entry into force of the 2004 Act no undue delays in the proceedings could be discerned, the proceedings having been conducted with due diligence and within a reasonable time. The court observed that the 2004 Act had entered into force on 17 September 2004 and could not be applied to the proceedings before that date.
4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Diyarbakır.
5.  On 9 April 2001 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody.
6.  On 11 April 2001 the applicant’s detention in police custody was prolonged for an additional period of two days, without his presence, by the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court.
7.  On 13 April 2001 the applicant’s detention in police custody was prolonged for an additional period of six days, without his presence, by the Diyarbakır State Security Court.
8.  On 18 April 2001, before the additional six-day period had expired, the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court who ordered his release.
9.  The criminal proceedings against the applicant for membership of an illegal organisation are still pending before the Diyarbakır Assize Court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Rzeszów.
5.  In 1987 the applicant’s wife filed a petition for divorce. The divorce was granted shortly afterwards.
6.  On 24 November 1987 the applicant lodged a claim for the division of matrimonial property with the Łańcut District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).
7.  On 31 December 1988 the Łańcut District Court gave a decision and divided the property.
8.  On an unspecified date the applicant appealed.
9.  On 7 November 1989 the Rzeszów Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) remitted the case.
10.  On 10 March 1998 the Łańcut District Court again gave a decision.
11.  On unspecified dates both parties appealed.
12.  On 11 September 1998 the Rzeszów Regional Court dismissed both appeals.
13.  On 23 October 1998 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy).
14.  On 14 May 2001 the Supreme Court refused to hear the applicant’s cassation appeal.
15.  The applicant submitted that as a consequence of the prolonged proceedings in his case he had been deprived of his property and had to live in a Welfare Home (Dom Pomocy Społecznej).
16.  On an unspecified date the applicant instituted enforcement proceedings against his wife who apparently had failed to comply with the final decision on the division of their property.
17.  On 6 May 1999 the Łańcut Bailiff informed the applicant that the enforcement had proved ineffective.
18.  On 10 May 1999 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Łańcut District Court against the actions taken by the bailiff (skarga na czynności komornika). He submitted that those actions had been incorrect, because the money obtained from the debtor had been distributed wrongly. He also complained about the ineffectiveness of the enforcement.
19.  On 21 July 1999 the Łańcut District Court dismissed his complaint. It held that the order of distribution had been in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure. As regards the ineffectiveness of the enforcement, the court held that no valuable objects had been found in the debtor’s house which could be sold and used to satisfy the debt.
20.  On an unspecified date the applicant appealed.
21.  On 21 July 1999 the Rzeszów Regional Court dismissed his appeal.